“While finding that Americans narrowly favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry, a new Associated Press-GfK poll also shows most believe wedding-related businesses should be allowed to deny service to same-sex couples for religious reasons,” reports the AP:
David Kenney, a self-employed Catholic from Novi, Michigan, said he’s fine with same-sex marriage being legal. He’s among the 57 percent of Americans who said wedding-related businesses—such as florists—should be allowed to refuse service if they have an objection rooted in their religion.
”Why make an issue out of one florist when there are probably thousands of florists?” asked Kenney, 59. “The gay community wants people to understand their position, but at the same time, they don’t want to understand other people’s religious convictions. It’s a two-way street.”
Reasonable compromise that extends freedom to all parties—an affront to progressivism!
Relatedly, in the Wall Street Journal, an op-ed: What Will Matter to Evangelicals in 2016 (firewalled, so google: “What Will Matter to Evangelicals in 2016” site:wsj.com). Writes Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention:
This isn’t only a Republican issue. Democrats and Republicans stood together for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act—signed by President Clinton. Perhaps it is time for Hillary Clinton to stand up for Jefferson’s vision of freedom of conscience against the sexual-revolution industrial complex in her party, which too often dismisses basic protections of free exercise as a “war on women” or a “right to discriminate.”
More. Meanwhile, LGBTQ Task Force leader Rea Carey, in her annual State of the Movement speech, took issue with the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision that employers with religious objections should not be forced to purchase abortifacient drugs for their employees, and with exemptions for religious organizations in the proposed Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), declaring:
…the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby ruling was a game changer—creating a world where employers could impose their religious beliefs on their employee’s health care choices. That ruling really magnified the potential impact of blurring the lines between religious beliefs and employment; between the separation of church and state. And, on July 8th, we pulled our support for the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. We simply had come way too far to compromise on such a fundamental principal of fairness and federal equality in the workplace. Instead we redoubled our work for what we really need—strong federal non-discrimination legislation without broad exemptions. I’m happy to report that our opposition, and that of other organizations, worked.
Well, it worked in terms of killing ENDA (maybe not a bad outcome, after all).
35 Comments for “Religious Liberty: Can We Avoid a New ‘Culture War’?”
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
We can certainly defend religious freedom — for all citizens, not just a select few — while also supporting equal rights and opportunities for all citizens, not just a select few. I have just not see too much support for religious freedom from the folks that claim to be the one true defender of it….
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
—sexual-revolution industrial complex in her party,
OMG….this is sort of like saying that maybe certain Republicans should stand up to the theocratic-lets-be-as-homophobic-as-Karl-Mark-industrial complex in her or his party…..
Way to build bridges (and have a civil debate) by insulting anyone has any concerns about legalized anarchy and mandated misogyny …..
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Yes, Virginia, we can avoid a new “Culture War”, and we will avoid it. We will avoid it by using reason and common sense, talking with our family, friends, neighbors and co-workers quietly, as we have done in the past, while letting the other side speak as loudly as the spirit moves them.
The current tempest in a teapot is an largely artificial controversy concocted by the conservative Christian base of the Republican Party and fueled by short-term cynicism of Republican politicians, and it will disappear like the morning fog within a few years. I’m actually surprised that the 57% is as low as it is, given the relentless tub-thumping of the past few years. But I think that it is important to keep in mind that Americans are a fair and practical people, and as a result, this too shall pass.
To understand why, I think that it is important to look at the so-called “religious freedom” laws actually being proposed.
A handful, at best, are “broad scope”, codifying (as does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act) decades-old established case law — sincere religious belief, compelling government interest, substantial burden. While I question the wisdom of codifying evolving case law standards, which could have the unintended consequence of ossifying our country’s court-driven expansion of religious liberty, and while I object to laws that do not meet the “religion neutral” test by protecting both religious and non-religious conscience, the “broad scope” laws are more likely than not a harmless exercise in political grandstanding.
But as I say, the “broad scope” laws are but a handful.
The bulk of the so-called “religious freedom” laws being proposed are “narrow scope” laws falling into three categories: (1) law to permit special discrimination against gays and lesbians, and gays and lesbians alone, by businesses and individuals, typically limited to same-sex marriages and public accommodations laws, (2) laws pernalizing state and county officials issue marriage licenses and/or recognize them for governmental purposes, and (3) laws permitting state and county officials to refuse to perform and/or recognize same-sex marriages.
The “narrow scope” laws are bad laws. The laws are clearly intended, not to promote “religious liberty”, but to institutionalize discrimination against gays and lesbians with the force of law. The laws are unlikely to withstand constitutional scrutiny, but more importantly, will not long stand up under scrutiny by ordinary Americans, who place a high value on fair and equal treatment of all citizens.
I think that gays and lesbians are right to oppose the proposed “narrow scope” laws, and I am appalled to see so-called “libertarians” like Stephen and Jon Rausch pounding the drum for such laws. “Reasonable compromise that extends freedom to all parties” may or may not be “an affront to progressivism” as Stephen contends (I think not) but the “narrow scope” laws are not a “reasonable compromise”. It won’t take long for Americans to see through the blather.
Religious freedom — true religious freedom — has expanded significantly since I began to practice law over 40 years ago, as a result of an ever expanding body of case law protecting religious practice and religious expression from the dictates of an unthinking majority. Religious freedom has expanded, not contracted, during that time.
The proposed “narrow scope” laws run against that trend, in my view, and, as Lori pointed out in another recent thread, the proposed “narrow-scope” “em>legislation would have some pretty jolly unintended consequences”.
It is bad enough that conservative Christians have increasingly reduced “Christianity” in popular/political culture to “anti-gay”, and I hope that Christians like Lori will be able to reverse that perception by fighting back. But as bad as that is, dragging the law in the direction of sanctioning special discrimination against gays and lesbians is worse.
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s the same old culture war. There’s nothing new about it. And while gay couples still can’t get married in some states and it’s still legal to fire people for being gay, I have zero sympathy for people who are mad because they’re being called out on their bigotry. The real complaint about the anti-gay baker? That they lost customers over all that. No law is going to protect them from the effects of bad PR.
Again, if the religious right wants a deal, they are welcome to offer one. Instead they want to play victim while continuing to enshrine their bigotry in the law. There’s nothing new in social conservatives being hypocrites, of course. In fact I’ve never met one who wasn’t. Again, if they want to offer adding gay people to the nondiscrimination laws (not ENDA but real nondiscrimination law) and nationwide gay marriage in exchange for some minor religious “freedom” then let’s see that proposal. Oh, but religious freedom would have to apply to everyone so if a Catholic baker refuses to make a cake for a Baptist wedding, they’d be free to use the law that way as well.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It’s the same old culture war. There’s nothing new about it.
And the so-called “religious freedom” laws are the last gasp of the Republican culture warriors.
We are not at the end of the road, yet. Republican politicians are pandering mightily, and Republican-aligned “libertarians” are pounding the drum conflating discrimination against gays and lesbians with religious freedom, but in a few years — a couple more presidential election cycles — the pander machine will collapse under its own weight.
posted by Houndentenor on
It never ceases to amaze me how short sighted so many cultural warriors can be. These rules and laws are there to protect the religious. They see them as a hinderence when in very rare cases they can’t discriminate against others but in so many places and situations the discrimination can be and increasingly WILL BE against them. I don’t know why they can’t see that.
posted by Rick Sincere on
There are non-gay florists?
posted by Houndentenor on
So if the florist can refuse to provide services for gay events, then can the wholesaler refuse to provide the florist with flowers because their bigotry violates THEIR religious beliefs? Or is it only fundamentalist Christians who have these special rights and only to discriminate against gay people?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Why make an issue out of one florist when there are probably thousands of florists?” asked Kenney, 59.
Just out of curiousity, I did a phone directory check on the availability of retail florists, cake bakeries and photographers within a 40-mile +/- radius of my home in rural Wisconsin (covering 36 towns, villages and cities).
I found four retail florists. I found two retail bakeries (in addition to the three Walmarts, which do decent special-order wedding cakes, from the looks of things). Photographers were thicker on the ground — nine.
Just for fun, I checked taxidermists and found 17. Just goes to show what’s important and what’s not in rural life, I suppose.
But I do wonder if folks living in the urban enclaves (like Kenney, who lives in the metro Detroit area) have a clue about the rest of the country when they toss of comments like this.
posted by Clayton on
There is one commercial baker in my town . The next nearest are 50 miles to the south and 65 miles to the north
posted by Jorge on
OMG….this is sort of like saying that maybe certain Republicans should stand up to the theocratic-lets-be-as-homophobic-as-Karl-Mark-industrial complex in her or his party…..
They did. Just not in the way some people like.
…oh, and that’s why Mr. Miller has his head in the clouds on this one.
But I do wonder if folks living in the urban enclaves (like Kenney, who lives in the metro Detroit area) have a clue about the rest of the country when they toss of comments like this.
The sob stories of rural Wisconsin do not rise to the level of interstate commerce and thus should not carry so much weight to those in the Detroit metro area. These are local issues. If Michigan has rural areas, then the people in that state are entitled to come to a decision on whether or not people who live in rural areas should be given this kind of deference. Personally I can’t stand long drives (and I don’t even drive), but that may just be me.
At first I thought the above paragraph sounded heartless, then then I remembered, I believe the Supreme Court has decided that in the case of abortion, forcing someone to travel dozens or hundreds of miles does infringe upon a woman’s right to an abortion (let alone refusing to subsidizing them. So it’s not like this is anything new. It’s just that we as a country might decide differently.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tom: But I do wonder if folks living in the urban enclaves (like Kenney, who lives in the metro Detroit area) have a clue about the rest of the country when they toss of comments like this.
Jorge: The sob stories of rural Wisconsin do not rise to the level of interstate commerce and thus should not carry so much weight to those in the Detroit metro area. These are local issues. If Michigan has rural areas, then the people in that state are entitled to come to a decision on whether or not people who live in rural areas should be given this kind of deference. Personally I can’t stand long drives (and I don’t even drive), but that may just be me.
At first I thought the above paragraph sounded heartless …
No, it just sounds dumb.
First, pointing out “disparate impact” is not a “sob story”, but instead a reminder that factual circumstances differ and should be taken into consideration. Second, state laws affecting local businesses like bakeries, florists and photographers do not involve “interstate commerce”, except in rare cases. Third, my comment goes to the clueless parochialism of urban Americans in general, and Kenney’s in particular.
As other commenters point out from time to time, many/most of the conservatives who post/comment disparagingly about non-discrimination issues on IGF do so from the safe haven of urban enclaves with laws and cultural norms protecting them from the impact of their attitudes. Kenney falls into that category and so, it appears, do you.
posted by Jorge on
As other commenters point out from time to time, many/most of the conservatives who post/comment disparagingly about non-discrimination issues on IGF do so from the safe haven of urban enclaves with laws and cultural norms protecting them from the impact of their attitudes. Kenney falls into that category and so, it appears, do you.
I may side with the right, but I am more of a moderate who can’t stand the far-left. As I do speak from a safe, urban enclave, that is why I’m not too eager to bloody my hands on the matter. I wait until the pendulum starts to swing past the left and into the far-left.
Well, since you don’t like my thought experiment to let each state decide their own affairs, I suppose I’ll drop it in favor of whatever it was I was doing before.
posted by MR Bill on
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/22336-genghis-christ-general-boykin-and-the-fundamentalist-christian-holy-war
posted by Tom Scharbach on
A legal note on Alabama (Searcy v. Strange): The deputy clerk of the Supreme Court notified attorneys in the case late yesterday that the Supreme Court was “not expected” to issue a ruling “this weekend” on the state’s motion to extend the District Court’s stay order, which expires at midnight on Sunday, indefinitely pending appeal.
As I understand the situation, assuming that the Court does not act before the District Court stay expires, the District Court’s order goes into effect at 12:01 am on Monday, and marriages can begin in Alabama.
The Court’s action (or inaction, more to the point) was unexpected. No explanation was given why the Court would not act, in this case, as it has in the other marriage equality cases where a decision on a stay motion was decided before the stay expired. Also puzzling is why the Court has not issued a temporary stay pending decision on the ruling, as has happened in several other marriage equality cases.
Some speculate that something has changed on the Court after the Court granted cert in the 6th Circuit cases, that the balance has shifted somehow, and the Court is arguing the question out before ruling on the motion.
Others speculate that the Court has not acted because the Court is not ready (and will not be ready this weekend) to issue a ruling, most likely because one or more of the Justices (probably Justice Scalia, possibly Justice Thomas) need time to prepare a dissent. In the other cases, the order denying a stay was issued by the full Court, with the notation that Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented from the ruling.
Still others speculate that the majority is writing an opinion to back up the ruling in light of the briefs submitted the state with respect to the motion and related events in Alabama. Both AG Luther Strange and Governor Robert Bentley filed briefs that challenged the authority the of federal courts to declare Alabama marriage laws unconstitutional, and Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore has been agitating for open resistance by state and county officials. Probate judges around the state (the officials who actually issue marriage licenses) are divided, with a number flatly stating that they will not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples no matter what the Court says. In a word, nullification and all that follows.
Of the three lines of thinking, I find the last most persuasive, given Justice Ginsberg’s stated sensitivity to the aftermath of Roe v. Wade. I can see the Court, with several months still to go before a definitive decision on the 6th Circuit cases, doing what it can to nip open rebellion in the bud rather than face the prospect of the President dispatching federal marshals to Alabama to enforce the District Court’s order, as happened the last time Alabama state officials elected to “stand in the door” and defy court orders.
But I want to emphasize that all of this is speculation. Nobody outside the Court has any idea what is going on. I think that it is important to remember that “not expected to issue” doesn’t mean “won’t issue”, so it is possible that the Court will issue a ruling on the motion before midnight Sunday. And it is equally important to remember that the Court might well act on Monday morning.
We might learn more over the next couple days. My guess is that the Court will issue something (perhaps a temporary stay) late Sunday or early Monday morning.
posted by Houndentenor on
LOL. “killing ENDA”. As if any pro-gay bill was going to get through a Congress run by Boehner and McConnell? There was no chance of ENDA passing anyway. You can’t kill something that wasn’t alive in the first place.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
1. Oddly enough several of the “progressives” on this message board have talked at some length about a reasonable compromise with regard to religious freedom and p.o. laws. It is not like making reasonable exemptions to p.o. is a terribly new or unheard of idea. Their is actually quite a bit of case law about what is and is not reasonable. I am not sure if Stephen dose not read the comments or feels that “reasonable” should translate into selective anarchy.
2. In certain — more rural communities — it is indeed possible that discrimination from one baker may indeed pose a much greater problem then say, folks living in the cities or even the larger suburbs. Again, I think that is is easy for folks who live in urbane population centers to overlook or dismiss the experiences of folk who don’t live in the “big city”.
3. When Democrats had a majority in both houses the challenge with ENDA was (a) adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the bill without much in the way of education beforehand for gender identity issues and (b) Democrats in more conservative districts who saw this as something that Republicans would use against them in the next election cycle.
When Republicans have a majority in both houses the challenge is (a) still an issue of education (although gender identity education has made some progress) and (b) if you want to go anywhere in Republican Party politics (outside of a few situations), then you cannot be seen as taking “liberal” voters on God, gays, guns or gynecology. Getting ENDA passed in either situation will not be an easy task (and I would certainly welcome things being tri-partisan), but I do not see the GOP leadership, much less vast majority of elected U.S. Senate and House Republicans getting behind a gay rights bill.
4. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has been very helpful/useful on many LGBT rights issues (heck, they were one of the first gay rights groups to have a very interactive and in-depth webpage that tracked legislation and the like at the state and federal level). They also have a habit of (sometimes) selecting leaders without a lot of tact or sense of long-term strategic planning.
It is not rarely a left vs. right issue. They have always been to the progressive left of say, the more centrist Human Rights Campaign. Their are ways of being to the left of the HRC and still being a bit smarter about it…
posted by Jorge on
What’s p.o. laws?
Getting ENDA passed in either situation will not be an easy task (and I would certainly welcome things being tri-partisan), but I do not see the GOP leadership, much less vast majority of elected U.S. Senate and House Republicans getting behind a gay rights bill.
Let us be fair: they’ll get behind a gay rights bill that’s 10 to 20 years behind the times. This applies to civil rights issues in general–criminal justice reform seems to be slowly uniting Congress, immigration reform is dividing the Republican party, while the Lilly Ledbetter Act passed a partisan Democratic congress. The Bill allowing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to be repealed, maybe that was 5-10 years behind the times at the time.
posted by Mike in Houston on
As you point out, “reasonable accommodation” has been pretty well litigated.
For example, the worker fired at AT&T who posted inflammatory bible verses in his office and on company bulletin boards (you know, the ones — wages of sin are death, etc.). He was fired not for his beliefs but for his actions which the company (rightly) construed as contributing to a hostile work environment. He sued, claiming “religious liberty” and lost.
(Not that this mattered to the Christian Persecution Make-a-Martyr™ machine…)
In another case, a woman was dismissed for displaying her bible on her desk. The company (wrongfully) fired her for ostensibly the same reasons as AT&T. She filed an EEO complaint and won out, because the behavior in question could not be reasonably construed as contributing to a hostile work environment — given the fact that the woman in question did not proselytize but merely kept the book on her desk for inspiration and to read on her breaks.
The baker in Colorado who did not refuse to bake a bible-shaped cake, but did have a policy against decorating any of her cakes with “hateful” language — and who offered to provide the customer with the tools to write their message themselves — also showed how to reasonably accommodate both her personal beliefs and that of the customer. This is the likely outcome of the case.
The upshot is: there are already reasonable “carve outs” that protect employees, employers, customers and business owners — despite what Stephen and his ardent admirers in the Alliance Defending Freedom, Liberty Counsel, etc. would have everyone believe.
The marriage equality conundrum:without employment protections, the very act of being married can (and has in many documented cases) lead to the loss of employment in many states. Changing your relationship status on FaceBook or displaying your family photo on your desk can get you fired — and you have NO recourse. It may be repugnant, but it’s perfectly legal. This is the “bargain” that the LDS wants to sell. It’s the exact kind of “religious freedom” carve out that Stephen keeps bleating on about.
posted by Lori Heine on
If the impact of prejudice is felt differently in different areas, then different laws should be passed–at the state, county or local level–to deal with them. Federal legislation–one size fits all, mindless of regional differences–uses a nuclear weapon to dispel a threat better dealt with using a sharpshooter’s rifle.
To the degree that any sort of anti-discrimination legislation might be warranted, a more concentrated approach would certainly make better sense. But I suppose everybody must be pushed around (and, from a political standpoint, pissed off) in order to satisfy the mob clamoring for said legislation.
The world’s full of nails…so let’s get busy with that hammer.
posted by Jorge on
If the impact of prejudice is felt differently in different areas, then different laws should be passed–at the state, county or local level–to deal with them. Federal legislation–one size fits all, mindless of regional differences–uses a nuclear weapon to dispel a threat better dealt with using a sharpshooter’s rifle.
Oh, bother, you phrase it in a way that’s so reasonable and to the point. I read your post as suggesting there is a role for federal legislation if it has a light touch.
My job’s anti-discrimination training is so complicated because we have federal protections, state protections, city protections, and then we have the employers anti-discrimination office (which enforces everything in the anti-discrimination law, nothing in the labor law), and then they tell you about the federal and state agencies that also enforce their anti-discrimination laws…
Do the workers understand it? Nope!
posted by JohnInCA on
The problem with “let the localities decide” is two things.
We’ve seen several times now where the state refuses to do so. They pass laws stopping cities/towns from doing exactly what you suggest.
Second, and perhaps, more importantly, if we wait for localities to pass non-discrimination protections, then you’re essentially writing off parts of the country. Hell, there are still sodomy laws on the books, remember? Unenforceable, yes, but even when legislators have *tried* to strike them they *couldn’t get the repeal passed*.
So whatever merits your suggestion might have, the practical impact is writing off large parts of the country and telling those living there “oh well. Trying to actually help you was against my beliefs.”
posted by Lori Heine on
And you don’t have the guts to sit down right across the table from these people, look them square in the eye, and demand to know why they’re treating you this way?
Doing things long-distance–treating people like droplets in a massive ocean, as if we have no names, no faces, no personal stories–is what has created this mess. It’s painful, it requires courage, it’s frustrating, and we’ll meet a lot of jerks. We’ll certainly have some unpleasant experiences. But it’s the only way hearts and minds are really changed.
And please, spare me more comic book arguments about how one-dimensionally villainous our opponents are. Be willing to do the work–as slowly as that goes–or stop crying about it. I will not join in on any more long-distance, depersonalizing, dehumanizing one-size-fits-all political campaigns.
posted by JohnInCA on
I didn’t turn anyone into anything, I’m simply reminding you of the consequences of your preferred strategies. What you do with that knowledge is between your conscience and you. But don’t lie to yourself that you’re doing a thing to help those people, because your strategy doesn’t fix the world, at best it fixes your corner of it.
Which there is a lot to say for. But you shouldn’t illusion yourself that you’re doing more then you are.
posted by Lori Heine on
John, NO one should think they’re doing more than they are. We’re always being told that we can transform the whole world, but we can’t. No one can, and no one individual ever will.
I’m only interested in fixing my corner of the world. Even in that effort, I’ll have but partial success at best, and won’t have any alone.
You’re right. That’s between my conscience and me. Delusions of grandeur really are the stuff of comic books. Nobody ever promised any of us that we’d be superheroes.
posted by JohnInCA on
Good! Now, if only I can get you to quit actively sabotaging and attacking people that *do* care about more then their own corner of the world.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
To the degree that any sort of anti-discrimination legislation might be warranted, a more concentrated approach would certainly make better sense.
In your February 28 comment to “Arizona Afterthoughts”, you made this observation:
Arizona, as I understand it, does not include “sexual orientation” in the statewide non-discrimination laws. The urban areas (Flagstaff, Phoenix, Tuscon) include “sexual orientation” in local and/or county ordinances. As a result, gays and lesbians living in the urban areas are protected; gays and lesbians living in rural areas are not. I gather from your comment that gays and lesbians in protected areas “thought rural folks should just go ahead and refuse to serve anybody they chose”.
Does that make any sense?
Why protect just gays and lesbians living in urban areas, where the need for protection would seem to be least needed because (a) urban populations are not “yokels” and, accordingly, less inclined to discriminate, and (b) services are thicker on the ground (e.g. Phoenix might have a dozen bakeries) so the loss of a service would have less impact.
And what are the chances that the “yokels” out in the rural areas would pass non-discrimination ordinances including “sexual orientation”? Slim to nothing?
As I understand the Arizona situation, the gays and lesbians with the least need for protection have the most protection, while the gays and lesbians with the most need for protection have the least protection.
It seems to me that the result is backward.
Local/county ordinances are a good thing (or not, I suppose, depending on your point of view about non-discrimination laws) but don’t do the job, it seems to me.
posted by Lori Heine on
Again with the Harry Potter approach to politics. A law is passed, and Alekazam! Shaboom! Shazaam! Automatically the heart’s desire of whichever wizards passing the law becomes effective. Exactly the way the wizards intended.
I don’t believe that laws always have the effects their makers intended. As a matter of fact, they usually have unintended consequences. I have nothing but disdain for anti-gay “Christian” bigots who pass discriminatory laws. But I don’t think that (A) those laws accomplish much of what is intended, or that (B) laws to counter them have a particularly desirable effect, either.
Tom, I’m sure my mentality is foreign to you. You seem to believe that bad people pass bad laws–which always accomplish exactly what they intend–and that good people pass good laws–which meet with the same success. I think we’re overlegislated in this country already, and that we’re doing nothing now but passing more and more and more and more laws, and gunking the whole works up so hopelessly that almost nothing works as it was intended.
It doesn’t mean that I like anti-gay conservatives who pass laws to make our lives tougher. It merely means that I don’t always believe the answer is yet another law.
And I still say that the anti-gay bigots really didn’t care whether the legislation they proposed ever passed. If they were smart, they didn’t even want it to, because it’s far more politically beneficial to them if it doesn’t. If it passes, they’ll quickly make everybody else so sick and tired of them that they’ll be through as a political force forever. Their only hope of continued political viability is to be able to portray themselves as victims and martyrs.
I simply don’t believe that all conservative rural people are bigots. Nor do I think that those with benighted notions about LGBT folks can’t be brought around. It won’t happen as fast as we’d like. Nothing worthwhile ever seems to. But the changes, when they come, would be more lasting.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Lori, I’m not sure what any of this has to do with the observation that both John and I posed for you — that reliance on local/county ordinances rather than statewide law has created a situation in Arizona in which the gays and lesbians with the least need for protection have the most protection, while the gays and lesbians with the most need for protection have the least protection.
That result, it seems to me, runs contrary to the argument you made in favor of subsidiarity (“If the impact of prejudice is felt differently in different areas, then different laws should be passed–at the state, county or local level–to deal with them.“).
I generally agree with the idea of subsidiarity (that is, that the locus of government power should be the lowest level of government needed to resolve the issues). The principle is sometimes called “local control”, but I hesitate to use that term because it has become politically charged.
In most cases, subsidiarity — finding the lowest effective level of government to get the work done — works best.
In many cases, though, working at the lowest level of government to solve problems doesn’t work well, or at all, and leads to results that are at odds with good public policy. The Arizona non-discrimination situation, it seems to me, is an example.
That doesn’t mean that the principle of subsidiarity is necessarily wrong. It means that the wrong level of government was identified at the lowest level of government capable of resolving an issue.
I don’t know the dynamics of Arizona politics, so I can’t comment on why non-discrimination laws have been put in place at the local/county level rather than the state level, where it seems to me it belongs. But whatever the reasons, the result of enacting local/county non-discrimination ordinances rather than a state law has led to a result that is inconsistent with good public policy.
I simply don’t believe that all conservative rural people are bigots.
I live in a rural area, and I have a lot of contact with “conservative rural people”. I probably engage with more conservative Christians in a week than you do in a month or more. It isn’t that I’m crusader rabbit, but instead that living in a rural area, I am in contact with all sorts of people on a daily basis.
I frequently talk with conservative Christians about the things we talk about on IGF,. I am not, in those conversations, trying to change their minds about “homosexuality as sin” or challenge their religious foundations. I don’t see that as my place, and even if I did, I think that it would be a terrible tactic. I talk with them the way I think focusing on is working to plant the seed that gays and lesbians should be citizens standing on an equal footing, in terms of both rights and responsibilities. And I ask the same questions that I ask on IFG (for example, “What is it that is so special about same-sex marriage that you require religious protection, when remarriage after divorce would seem to be an equal affront to religious sensibility?”) I challenge, and I quietly push, but I don’t demean or go off on them.
I have seen the power of one-on-one contact to defuse fear and loathing, and change attitudes, because I live in that world daily. That’s the reason why I insistently assert that the most important factor in our struggle for equality has been ordinary gays and lesbians coming out to their families, friends, neighbors and co-workers. A person who knows and likes gays and lesbians simply cannot sustain anti-gay attitudes in the way that a person who doesn’t know (or more accurately, know that they know) gays and lesbians in day-to-day contact.
As you have probably noticed, I don’t use terms like “bigot” to describe conservative Christians or or “yokel” to describe my neighbors and friends.
I don’t use those terms — or think in those terms — because it is next to impossible for me to do so, knowing conservative Christians who are sincere, decent people. I think that they are wrong-headed, but I don’t think that they are “bad people”.
And I agree with you that conservative Christians can be “brought around” in time — not necessarily so far as to think that homosexuality is not a grave sin, but far enough along to treat us as they treat adulterers by remarriage, seeing us as Americans more “like” than “other”, as fellow citizens rather than people who need to be the subject of special discrimination.
However, while I think that personal contact is a change agent, I also believe in “Bring the body, the mind will follow.” That is, I believe that there is a place for law in the mix, and that laws, by “bringing the body” can (and often does) lead to “the mind following”.
I’ve seen that work in many arenas over the years. It may not be necessary in our case, but it worked reasonably well for integrating women and African-Americans into the workplace, and amplified the cultural change.
It is harder for a man who works alongside a women on an equal footing to dismiss her as “the little woman”, a sexual object without a mind. Similarly, it is harder for a white to make Earl Butz jokes about African-Americans if a neighbor is someone they’ve come to like and respect. Similarly, it seems to be that non-discrimination laws involving sexual orientation may well have a similar effect.
However, I want this to be clearly noted: We should not add sexual orientation to non-discrimination laws in order to promote cultural change. If we add them, we should add them because they are needed to ensure equal treatment and equal protection, just as was the case with adding gender and race to non-discrimination laws. The laws that mandate equal treatment in the workplace in those cases were not primarily intended to drive cultural change, but instead to enforce equal treatment. The laws had the result of speeding up cultural change, but that was a consequence, not the purpose.
Tom, I’m sure my mentality is foreign to you.
Yes it is, but not, perhaps, for the reasons you think.
I’m a centrist, and I believe that use of government power can, and often does, promote the common good. We seem to disagree about the nature and extent that law should be used in that respect, but I don’t find that particularly foreign. I have disagreements all the time about such matters with people all over the political spectrum.
What is foriegn to me is the way you write about the issues. I just don’t get it.
Your stridency (laws as “violence”), frequent dismissal those who disagree with you as “children” and their ideas as “comic book arguments”, and tendency toward personal attack (e.g. your response to John in CA above) are off-putting and foreign. Much of the time I read what you write and just shake my head.
Let’s look at this exhange. You put forward an idea about subsidiarity. I responded by pointing out that subsidiarity at the local/county level had a backwards result in a particular case. What I got back was “Again with the Harry Potter approach to politics. A law is passed, and Alekazam! Shaboom! Shazaam! Automatically the heart’s desire of whichever wizards passing the law becomes effective. Exactly the way the wizards intended.”
What does that have to do with the problem I posed? And then we went on from there to a long diatribe about my thinking, which I hope this response clarifies somewhat. Anything and everything except a discussion about what happened in Arizona, why and how it happened, and what can or cannot learn from it.
What puzzles me most is that you don’t write on IFG way in other contexts. I’ve read your essays on Christian sites, and those writings have a completely different tone and approach. I wish that you would adopt that same reasoned, tempered approach to your writing on IFG more often.
So, yes, you are foreign to me. I don’t pretend that I understand you. To me, you seem to flail around, running hot and cold, almost randomly. I think twice about responding to your comments because as often as not the discussion seems to fly off into personal attacks and scatter-shot. But many of the ideas you put forward, modified to bring them more in line with the center of American thought, are ideas that I share and advocate. So in that sense you are not as foreign as you might think.
You seem to believe that bad people pass bad laws – which always accomplish exactly what they intend – and that good people pass good laws – which meet with the same success.
If you think that, you probably ought to pay more attention to what I actually have had to say over the years on this forum.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
—Again with the Harry Potter approach to politics.
Hmm. I never could really figure out sort of political system was at work in the land of Hogwarts (maybe I need to read the books, but I do not recall much talk of parliamentary elections or debates on whether or not wizards should be allowed to marry other wizards.
—A law is passed, and Alekazam! Shaboom! Shazaam!
Well, “Shazaam” is from a comic book character, not Harry Potter (again, I have only read the first book and I been told that the films left lots of stuff out).
–Automatically the heart’s desire of whichever wizards passing the law becomes effective. Exactly the way the wizards intended.
Um no. That is not how public policy works and anyone–unless they are a nutter would know that.
–Tom, I’m sure my mentality is foreign to you.
Which Tom? Me? The other tom? A character from Harry Potter?
—I simply don’t believe that all conservative rural people are bigots.
I do not think that anyone here said that everyone who lives in a rural community or a small town or is conservative…must be a bigot.
In terms of education via persuasion — a fairly large chunk of people will not change their mind. Some folks in the “movable middle” may be willing to do so.
posted by Francis on
As someone who has read the books, I can tell you that the Ministry of Magic did not (in the areas where its workings are covered) touch upon the subject of wizard-muggle intermarriage. (Spoiler alert) The exception was in book 7 after the Death Eater takeover, where the policy towards muggle-born wizards (think McCarthy meets Hitler) had the effect of breaking up at least one half-blood family.
posted by Lori Heine on
Tom and Tom, I don’t view either of you as comic book characters. You both speak frequently of anti-discrimination legislation in favorable terms. I agree with the sentiments, but again, don’t think the results often meet expectations. Sometimes they cause unforeseen problems.
I do not see all rural people as bigots or yokels, but indeed some are. They frequently do bad things. Whether this makes them very bad and terrible people is up to God to decide.
In Arizona, the cities do offer more protections than the hinterlands. That may not change soon, but I believe those folks in the rural areas need to come to enlightenment about LGBT people at their own pace. When they’re pushed before they’re ready, they get a lot madder than they do about somebody like me calling them bigots or yokels.
Tom S, you said that you have changed the minds of people who’ve gotten to know you personally. That’s how it works. There’s no shortcut. Politicians make their careers out of telling us that there is, but they’re misleading us.
I see the religious dimension to the argument differently because I’m a person of faith. This is essentially a family squabble, as far as the religious element is concerned. However little you may think of what Christians believe, even most LGBT Christians I know express unease about non-believers butting into the mix. We believe in using persuasion to change the minds of those who condemn us, and we have often seen that work.It isn’t going to happen any other way.
I believe that if a few of these “religious freedom” laws slip through, it will have an effect that those who don’t know the inner workings of Church politics may not realize. It will force the debate front-and-center. Even many in the pews who might wish to hide and stay out of the fray are starting to get pissed off at the social conservatives’ assertion that “all” Christians believe as they do, or interpret the Bible the same way. The more they’re dissed or ignored, the more willing they are to stand up and be counted. They don’t like being lumped together with people who use their faith as a front for ugliness, or with hearing their faith slandered.
I’m aware that you probably think all that’s a tempest in a teapot and don’t care about the outcome of that debate. I care about it very much. I also think it matters, even to you, because it has an effect on whether our social conservative opposition stays strong or fizzles away into the fringes.
I like shaboom and shazaam, and I reserve the right to keep using them. If Al McCoy can do it (the Suns announcer), then so can I.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I see the religious dimension to the argument differently because I’m a person of faith.
Correction: You are a person of the Christian faith.
I recognize that the phrase “person of faith” has come to mean “person of the Christian faith” in the popular lexicon of Christians, conflating faith and Christianity, but Christians who understand Christian scriptures should not make that conflation. Romans 9-11 and related. And what is true with respect to God’s chosen is also true with respect to the people of faith to whom God has revealed himself in other ways, in other religious expressions.
This is essentially a family squabble, as far as the religious element is concerned.
The “family squabble” has unleashed a conservative Christian juggernaut upon the land, as dark and destructive as the locusts descending upon Egypt. As the veil hiding the motivations behind the anti-marriage amendments has been rendered in recent years, it has become increasingly clear that the movers behind the anti-equality movement are acting out of religious conviction, and that religious conviction has been, is, and will remain the core motivator of the movement. A “family squabble” it may be, but it is a “family squabble” that has spilled out into the streets, affecting us all.
However little you may think of what Christians believe, even most LGBT Christians I know express unease about non-believers butting into the mix. We believe in using persuasion to change the minds of those who condemn us, and we have often seen that work. It isn’t going to happen any other way.
As a “non-believer”, I am directly affected by the political juggernaut that conservative Christians have unleashed on the land.
I am careful not to involve myself in the “family squabble” itself, but I’ll be damned if I am going to sit on my ass and wait for you all to sort it out while conservative Christians work in the secular arena to shape the law to conform to their twisted theology, gays and lesbians are denied legal recognition for their relationships, children are destroyed by the homophobic messaging coming out of conservative Christian churches, and so on.
I understand that Christians resent having non-Christians fight for secular equality, but that is a consequence of Christianity being the elephant in the room. In a country in which a overwhelming majority of citizens self-describe as Christians, your “family squabble” spills out and affects us all. We have a right — and an obligation — to “butt in” and fight for equality, justice and the common good.
If that complicates the dynamics of the “family squabble”, it is not my concern. If Christians don’t want the rest of us to “butt in”, the Christians should “butt out” and refrain from trying to impose their theology on the law and culture.
I’m not nearly as angry as I probably sound, Lori, and I am not personally angry at you for unthinkingly falling into the Christian trap, and sounding as if Christianity is the only game in town. But I wish Christians would heed St. Paul’s advice once in a while, and humble themselves before God.
posted by Lori Heine on
My mentality has nothing to do with Christianity being the only game in town. It has to do with the fact that Christians have been the ones who’ve caused this problem.
Which means that we’re largely the ones who need to solve it.
I, too, wish the people who think that humiliating and discriminating against us would humble themselves before the Lord. I’m even hoping to help influence a few of them to do it. I just don’t think that it helps when people they regard as outsiders use government force to do it.
I don’t think that it works. I appreciate that you don’t agree with me. What you see as a lack of respect for your beliefs as a non-Christian, they see as your own attempt to impose your views on the law and culture. And, because many of them think gay people can’t be anything but enemies of their faith, they think I’m doing that, too–simply by virtue of the fact that I’m gay.
My mindset isn’t the one that made this mess; theirs did. I understand your position. They don’t. I still don’t believe that passing laws alone will change their minds. I think that your efforts to convince them face-to-face, while much slower, will ultimately be more effective.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Now, if only I can get you to quit actively sabotaging and attacking people that *do* care about more then their own corner of the world.”
Wow! That’s statist Left dishonesty at its finest. Not believing one can change everything in the world means not caring about it.
For the record, John in CA, I don’t believe anything you’re doing is doing any damned good. I think that very often you make things worse. I think that the people you idolize, as great heroes of “progressivism,” are the people who stand to benefit most from the misery of those they claim to champion. I think they’re frauds.
And if you believe them, I think you are deluded. The notion that this means you care more about them than I do is sheer absurdity.